Amanda Palmer And Steve Albini On 'Piracy': It Only Helps Musicians

from the spread-the-music dept

Okay, here's a bit of a two-fer. With all of the attention that Amanda Palmer has been getting for her massively successful Kickstarter campaign, we had some commenters here questioning whether or not she would freak out if people then shared her music. Thankfully, in her latest update about the project she answers that and many other questions from some folks who are still a little confused about what's going on. But, for this post, let's focus on the simple question of "piracy" -- since it's one that comes up often enough around here:

i think music should be shared. all the time. by everybody. i think it’s pure insanity to make music filesharing illegal.
and with that said, i have, for years, encouraged my fans to burn, download and share all of my music with each other and with strangers.
and i will never stop doing that. all that sharing eventually comes back to me in all forms of income and goodwill.

This actually reminded me that, a few weeks earlier, famed music producer Steve Albini did an AMA on Reddit, in which he was asked a similar question, to which he responded:

I reject the term "piracy." It's people listening to music and sharing it with other people, and it's good for musicians because it widens the audience for music. The record industry doesn't like trading music because they see it as lost sales, but that's nonsense. Sales have declined because physical discs are no longer the distribution medium for mass-appeal pop music, and expecting people to treat files as physical objects to be inventoried and bought individually is absurd.

The downtrend in sales has hurt the recording business, obviously, but not us specifically because we never relied on the mainstream record industry for our clientele. Bands are always going to want to record themselves, and there will always be a market among serious music fans for well-made record albums. I'll point to the success of the Chicago label Numero Group as an example.

There won't ever be a mass-market record industry again, and that's fine with me because that industry didn't operate for the benefit of the musicians or the audience, the only classes of people I care about.

Free distribution of music has created a huge growth in the audience for live music performance, where most bands spend most of their time and energy anyway. Ticket prices have risen to the point that even club-level touring bands can earn a middle-class income if they keep their shit together, and every band now has access to a world-wide audience at no cost of acquisition. That's fantastic.

Additionally, places poorly-served by the old-school record business (small or isolate towns, third-world and non-english-speaking countries) now have access to everything instead of a small sampling of music controlled by a hidebound local industry. When my band toured Eastern Europe a couple of years ago we had full houses despite having sold literally no records in most of those countries. Thank you internets.

The key point that both Palmer and Albini recognize is that it's not about the "sharing" or "piracy" or whatever you want to call it. It's about what you do with it. Both recognize that if you play your cards right, things can be absolutely fantastic for musicians these days, because not only can they have more control over their own destinies by taking charge of their careers, the biggest challenge is obscurity not piracy. And, in fact, file sharing (not "piracy" if it's supported by the artists themselves) can help alleviate that problem, help them build up larger audiences around the globe -- at no cost -- and then do something with that fanbase later.

I keep seeing critics complain that Amanda's Kickstarter campaign only is useful to someone like Amanda because she "had a big fanbase" already. That ignores (completely) how she built up that fanbase. And part of that is making sure as many people as possible could and did hear her music. In that context, fighting against "piracy" seems to be fighting against an artist's own best interests...

Re: Re:

Mike's interpretation of these comments is really conservative

Palmer and Albini are stating in no uncertain terms that file-sharing is not piracy.

Yes, they're saying it's what you do with it, but they're also saying it's socially and morally acceptable behavior in general, regardless of how you use it.

And they're arguing that from the artist's point of view, not the consumer's. Consumers have an even stronger argument. You shouldn't have to get somebody's permission before simply sharing their work with other people, such sharing isn't piracy, and the First Amendment should keep the US government from interfering with such activity.

Finally, they're saying very clearly that file-sharing builds fanbases, period. Not for some, but inherently, every time it happens. "Building fanbases" is to "file-sharing as "blue" is to "summer sky."

Re: Mike's interpretation of these comments is really conservative

And since I am an original 1976 Punk rocker who does put out Music I agree.Ever since I made my first Tape when I used a 4-Track TEAC I have always made my Art available for Free to those who had no money and I could care less if they share it on the Internet or use it and put it on youtube or wherever.
Go ahead and share my stuff with this whole World ! I would much rather get a fan email than stick you with a Bill !!!
Around 6 Albums or so are all here at www.bigmeathammer.com
that is if you like good old scummy Punk Rock.

Re: Re:

The major labels get absolutely zero from me. Long ago I used to buy a good bit of music. The difference between the two is I figured out I had paid them in full and if I wanted on a different format, I could do that without paying the ransom wanted for each version.

When sue'em all started, that ended my music buying days as I went on boycott and will continue the rest of my life without problem. They are their own worst enemies and I have no sympathy for accountants and lawyers acting has they have acted. So let them raise cain about file sharing. It is precisely these attitudes that have led me to buy nothing anymore. I don't hear new music on the radio and am not exposed to new music. As a consequence of that, I have no desire to buy new.

It's easy to see why the trolls are here with that sort of money on the line. I wind up seeing humor in their posts but absolutely nothing that changes my mind. They have accomplished the opposite, pushing my attitude about buying major label music further into the 'never do'. Good luck on making a profit from all the customers they have alienated.

Patronage

I've been following Amanda Palmer's story for a while (first came across her story here on Techdirt - kicked in to her kickstarter as well). What I find interesting is so many criticizing her project as 'begging for donations' which couldn't be further from the truth. At every offer level her kickstarter offers something back: a download, CD's, art work, access, etc. All but the most basic levels offer tangible goods. Hardly begging.

The other aspect I find interesting is the pundits describing kickstarter as something 'new'. To me it simply the digital version of the patronage model used during much of the Renaissance. Wealthy backers funded art for the sake of the art itself (along with a healthy dose of self aggrandizement). The difference is the breadth of the patrons - many small patrons rather than one wealthy one.

Artists themselves

Personally, I agree with both Albini and Amanda. I have no problem if people share my music. (For those albums of mine that are put out on a label, I do politely ask that people respect the labels' wishes, but most of the labels I work with don't give a shit.) I don't feel like file sharing sites (including The Pirate Bay) are "ripping me off" in the slightest. Many, many other artists (most of whom are far more lucrative than I) feel the same way. Even if they don't, I have yet to meet a single artist who believes that filesharing sites are worse than major labels.

Of course, that's not the way the pro-label people spin it. I give this story under an hour before that AC (who I still suspect is Lowery himself) comes here, starts spamming the thread with posts to ridiculous technophobic websites, and starts ranting on about The Pirate Bay.

It's really amazing how many people who claim to be "pro-artist" don't actually listen to the artists themselves. Quite a significant amount of artists don't see file sharing as a threat at all, even when it's infringing. And those "pro-artist" AC's never fail to ignore them, downplay their independent work, or outright insult them.

What's really frustrating about this whole thing is that it paints a picture of artists vs. fans. By claiming to speak for artists, all the naysayers are doing is getting people to hate artists. (Not surprising, since by and large their agenda has nothing to do with actually supporting artists, but with preserving the label system.) But the plain fact is that artists usually aren't the ones ranting about Google being pirates or filesharing being evil incarnate.

There actually isn't much conflict at all between the fans (most of whom are heavy filesharers) and the artists. By creating a false dichotomy, the "piracy"-haters are doing nothing less than driving a wedge between the artists, and the fans they need for support. It's disgusting.

Re: It is really simple

Ditto re the movies. I stopped going around the time they started suing everyone for P2P...and not for that reason. I stopped going because their output is crap. No surprise that they developed this extortionate "alternate business model" around the same time.

The record industry doesn't like trading music because they see it as lost sales

They don't really see it as lost sales (that is just their public excuse). The real reason they don't want music shared is that it removes them as sole avenues for distribution which grant them two advantages.

First is the ability to determine who makes it or doesn't (as an example, ask Fiona Apple how long Sony shelved her third album until it was leaked and became an underground hit). For the labels a few mega-successful acts and a lot of failures is much preferred to a large number of reasonably successful acts. Second, being the sole avenues for distribution allows them to charge premium (and in many cases redundant) fees that they wouldn't be able to in a free market.

Similar, and more

Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

I once read that when he once produced one major label album (I think for Helmet or Nirvana), he made the mistake of agreeing to be paid by the label; and stated that a homeless man he recorded in Chicago had actually paid him off quicker than the label did. He also once talked about discovering someone in Japan had bootlegged a bunch of early Big Black material; the thing that annoyed him that the 12" slab played at 16RPM. He said something like "if your going to bootleg our stuff, at least do it in a form that can be used by more than just a handful of people can ever use.....

For shame.

Yet another attempt to justify theft. Don't pretend for one second that when you steal a song by downloading it for free without authorization from the copyright owner that you are serving anyone but yourself. If you can't afford to pay for something, or you don't want to pay for it, do without.

This attitude that the world owes everyone everything they want has created a huge group of criminals.

By all means, steal all you want. You probably won't get caught. Sleep well.

In a Nutshell

"There won't ever be a mass-market record industry again, and that's fine with me because that industry didn't operate for the benefit of the musicians or the audience, the only classes of people I care about."

Forget the articles, just put up this one sentence 4 times a day until people get it through their heads. It's all you need to know, and everything else posted to Techdirt is just trying to get you to understand what it implies.

Re: Re: It is really simple

unfortunately that argument falls flat when looking at the piracy of music software which is obviously valued by the user but they steal it anyway.

The argument that the pirated stuff must have immense value because otherwise why would people pirate it is not so rock solid. In some cases, it may be because it's valuable, but a lot of the time it's pirated because it's not that valuable at all, or the value is unproven.

as for amanda, it's about choice and respect. so why not support all artists choices, and not just amanda's?

Interesting comment, since the comment you're replying to is doing just that. As am I, and lots of others here.

I will not support oppressive companies, including all labels represented by RIAA. I respect the choice of artists that choose to associate with such companies by not purchasing their music -- nor do I pirate it.

The AC you're replying to is saying something very similar. Neither of us are disrespecting the artist's wishes at all.

amanda can easily give her music away without the help of illegal and unethical sites like the pirate bay

I'll leave "unethical" as that's a subjective call, but TPB is not engaging in illegal activities (according to US law, anyway).

Someday, Amanda may change her mind, or decide to pursue other choices, and when and if she does, she should have as much right to do so at that time.

Re:

how does your theory hold up for software, books, films, and other non-musical forms of artistic expression? it's naive to think the conversation is only about music.

a lot of music software is pirated, should that be free too? how much should a company charge for the investment in a piece of software that many find useful?

this is about all artists rights, not just music. but it's also about the choice of the artist to determine the value of their own work. if you don't agree with them, don't buy it, but don't allow for the illegal exploitation of their work either.

the funny thing is, it's really not about people downloading, or sharing, it's about those who are profiting from that illegal commercial sharing.

amanda has made her choice, and everyone should respect that, but every should also respect the choices of other artists as well, even if you disagree with them, that would be fair and ethical instead of being a bully.

Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

"I'll leave "unethical" as that's a subjective call, but TPB is not engaging in illegal activities (according to US law, anyway)."

really? they most certainly are, you don't see limewire still operating do you? the pirate bay was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to jail time in their own country and upheld by their own supreme court. the same would have happen should they have been based in the US.

Re: Artists themselves

"It's really amazing how many people who claim to be "pro-artist" don't actually listen to the artists themselves. Quite a significant amount of artists don't see file sharing as a threat at all, even when it's infringing. And those "pro-artist" AC's never fail to ignore them, downplay their independent work, or outright insult them."

Actually, that's true of your approach to the artists who's choices YOU don't agree with. I'm pro-choice and support Amanda's choices. I ALSO support the choices of other artists who don't wish to give away their work, or have it be illegally exploited.

I absolute support Amanda's choices as an artist because I believe in EACH Artist's right to make the decisions that are specifically right for them.

You want to remove choices from artists by imposing forced collectivism (which is how child labor happens). You can't have liberty without consent, and your freedoms end when they infringe upon mine. That's how society works and that's why Lessig has lost his cases on copyright TWICE, and once in front of the Supreme Court.

So if you really want show what tolerance looks like, maybe you should accept that not every artist benefits from Amanda's model? Isn't that what Mike says? It may not work for eveyone? Well then, why not let each artist chose for themselves rather than allowing the illegal exploitation of the artists work by corporations for profit and paying the artists nothing, like The Pirate Bay...

The fact is, as a whole, musicians are far worse off now than they were a decade ago, despite the rare exceptions like Amanda (and I'm still not sure from her own numbers and admission that she believes she's financially better off...)

Re: Re: Artists themselves

You want to remove choices from artists by imposing forced collectivism

That's interesting, because Karl specifically wrote "For those albums of mine that are put out on a label, I do politely ask that people respect the labels' wishes"

That doesn't sound like he wants to remove any choices or impose forced collectives. In fact, for that matter, I've yet to hear any commenter or poster here say anything about forcing artists to use a specific model.

Re: Re: Artists themselves

You can't have liberty without consent, and your freedoms end when they infringe upon mine

On this, we agree 100% -- and it's exactly why I get angry at the actions of the major content companies. Their legislative and legal actions are a grave threat to my freedoms. And no, I'm not talking about "freedom to pirate".

I don't care if they want to spend so much time and energy on these issues. I very much care when their efforts infringe on my freedoms.

Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

The argument that the pirated stuff must have immense value because otherwise why would people pirate it is not so rock solid. In some cases, it may be because it's valuable, but a lot of the time it's pirated because it's not that valuable at all, or the value is unproven.

I've read this a few times and it still makes no sense.
People pirate music software because it's tool they want to use.
They pirate the music software they can get away with because it saves them a lot of money. Money they can then spend on unpiratable hardware.
You only need to read the comments section of torrent sites to understand this.
Pirates discuss the software being offered unauthorized on the site. Ask a lot of questions on how to install and use it, proclaim their excitement at procuring the product without buying etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

They pirate the music software they can get away with because it saves them a lot of money.

Some do, sure. But most do not. Most people pirate to get these things in a better format (minus DRM, minus region encoding, etc.), because they cannot obtain it at all otherwise, or to sample the artists work and see if they like it.

The proof of this is that every time a for-pay service starts up that actually meets the needs nonmonetary needs that piracy is fulfilling, there's are a whole lot of people who start using it instead of pirating.

This misunderstanding is, I think, one of the main reasons why content companies have a serious problem dealing with piracy -- they don't understand why people do it. If they did, then they would have an easier time meeting the needs of the market they're missing.

Re: Re: Re: For shame.

Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

really, because asking people nicely to respect artists choices as worked out so well... name one artist who has expressed the desire to have their work removed from the pirate bay and that request was honored?

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

"Some do, sure. But most do not. "

that a lie. if that were true we wouldn't be having this conversation. and once you are corned in an argument you move the goal posts, so when value is proven, suddenly there's a different argument... people do, because they can...

Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

not so. I don't have a crystal ball, I'm fighting for a fair and ethical internet. I'm not trying to convince that the outcome is inevitable, rather I'm educating you that you can't predict the outcome, and as such, the will of good people for a fair and ethical internet without exploitation has a fighting chance...

it's you guys who are trying to convince us to give up, I know why you waste your time here, the game's not over, not even close.

if you really believe nothing can be done to stop the outcome, take a vacation and enjoy your life, but if you don't believe the outcome is already fated, you'll keep fighting because you are very afraid that I could actually prevail!

Re: For shame.

Yet another attempt to justify theft. Don't pretend for one second that when you steal a song by downloading it for free without authorization from the copyright owner that you are serving anyone but yourself. If you can't afford to pay for something, or you don't want to pay for it, do without.

This attitude that the world owes everyone everything they want has created a huge group of criminals.

By all means, steal all you want. You probably won't get caught. Sleep well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

Re: Re: Artists themselves

The one problem Mr Lowery is that if people choose not to purchase someone's album or download or fileshare (and you can't stop them all, but say you did), the artist gets nothing and the artist gets no exposure either.

At least with the filesharing the exposure is greater and the chances of someone purchasing a package or tickets or even copies of music are greater.

Steve Kudrow has been in the music biz for 30+ years and says (along with others) that the labels don't pay. And "the barn is open, the animals have all left" so what is the point of trying to sue or legislate a way through this instead of trying different things like Amanda has?

Yes, doing exactly as she did won't work for every artist, but that's because they are not her, it works for her because she is her. Any artist can come up with a creative means to release something besides copies of their art and hope people pay. That's where the creativity comes in.

Yes, the artist can't really support themselves by just making art, they have to take on the responsibilities the labels have. But what happens when you're dropped? You still owe the label the cash they gave you and so you have to get a job and pay them back, unless you strike some deal where they take all your rights and forgive the debt.

Even then, you're left with SFA after. While the Pirate Bay or Limewire don't share their supposed massive profits (though for the TPB it was proven they had NO massive profits and earned just enough to feed the three of them plus run the business), they don't have anywhere near the profits of the labels and they don't provide any service either to the artist beyond free distribution.

Put it this way, I downloaded a few songs from U2 and didn't like them, I don't share those songs and I don't listen to them. However, I do own every released format of The Joshua Tree. I can't afford their concert tickets and I don't care to hear anything after Achtung Baby anyhow. It just doesn't appeal to me.

Point being, U2 hasn't lost anything from me. And even if it were the old days, I would have used the listening area to check out and learn for myself I didn't like their later releases, so they would still be at $0 from me for their newer stuff.

But what about the potential buyers who are faced with extorionate pricing or no access at all? You know when iTunes came out in 2003/4 I was excited, except not, it was not for Canadians. WTF? I was ready to get what I wanted, not a $20 CD for 1 or 3 songs, but just the songs I wanted for $1 each. Good price, I get what I want, I'm happy.

Nope, sorry, no licensing for Canada yet. Or for Nigeria or Equador or whoever. Who's fault is that? People want it and are willing to pay but the current business doesn't want to make decent profits? No they want to control and make exuberant profits and share next to nothing with most artists. Sorry, no pity there. No pity for anyone who supports the labels either.

If Gene Simmons released an album, maybe I'd buy it if he wasn't such a douche. But he is a douche and acts like he's God and we should be happy he released something and buy it, good or bad, just fucking buy it.

That's the attitude we get. First consumers are shafted because labels don't want to offer a fair price (price fixing charges in the early 2000's but they've been doing that for decades - monopoly != free market). Second consumers are shafted because we're labeled thieves for getting what we want because some corporate twat thinks they "know" what the people want. Finally we're alienated and then have to somehow feel sympathy for artists who side with the labels and alienate their fans?

When the choice of free exists, the last thing you do is alienate your fanbase.

Re: For shame.

more SOPA censorship on TechDirt, not very OPEN of you...

Yet another attempt to justify theft. Don't pretend for one second that when you steal a song by downloading it for free without authorization from the copyright owner that you are serving anyone but yourself. If you can't afford to pay for something, or you don't want to pay for it, do without.

This attitude that the world owes everyone everything they want has created a huge group of criminals.

By all means, steal all you want. You probably won't get caught. Sleep well.

Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

More TD Censorship...

Yet another attempt to justify theft. Don't pretend for one second that when you steal a song by downloading it for free without authorization from the copyright owner that you are serving anyone but yourself. If you can't afford to pay for something, or you don't want to pay for it, do without.

This attitude that the world owes everyone everything they want has created a huge group of criminals.

By all means, steal all you want. You probably won't get caught. Sleep well.

Re: Re: Artists themselves

Speak of the devil. You're never going to stop shitting on artists, are you?

You want to remove choices from artists by imposing forced collectivism

Where the fuck did this come from? "Forced collectivism?" I have no idea how relaxing a government-granted monopoly is supposed to be "forced collectivism."

And riddle me this, Batman: How is shutting down filesharing websites, so that no artists can use it even if they want to, respecting artists' decisions? Like you said, your freedoms end when they infringe upon mine. Sharing my music, whether through The Pirate Bay or anywhere else, is my freedom, my choice. You have no right to take that away from me.

Plus, even if your work is on a filesharing site, that doesn't remove your ability to sell your music, or license it, or earn money for live performances, or collect from BMI/ASCAP, or what have you. You still have every ability to make money that you had before. No amount of filesharing can take that away from you.

The fact is, as a whole, musicians are far worse off now than they were a decade ago

Nope. Try again. And try to do it without linking to that Trichordist site - it lies.

Examples: SoundScan only collects POS data if you register a UPC with them, regardless of whether you sell stuff on iTunes (&etc) or not.

And, when you hear that there were "only" 75,000 Albums released in 2010, keep in mind that from 1992-2001, the labels never released more than 38,900 albums released per year. The number in 2001 was 27,000 new releases. That's from the RIAA; in fact, they may have been wrong (or lying) - this BusinessWeek article quotes Neilsen SoundScan as saying the number for 2002 was 31,734 new releases.

In other words: in ten years, the number of new releases more than doubled.

(Incidentally, the years with the highest numbers of employed musicians was 2001-2002: the Napster years. Things declined after that; but the number of working musicians increased again in 2004 - the year iTunes came out.)

Oh, and the number of "Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers?" The earliest data I could find for that was 2007. At that point, there were 1,640 in the "Musicians and Singers" category, making up 3.28% of that category. In 2001, that number rose to 1,910 people and 4.00%. So independents are gaining ground (slightly).

So, that article is a lie. And that's only on one article. The entire site is full of bullshit. It's not even subtle bullshit, either. It's obvious, rampant hate speech directed at any part of the music industry that's not based upon the old label model.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

No one is bullying, it's called giving a reason to buy.

What you think because you release something people should buy it? No, you don't want them to consume it at all, so you'd rather people not download or share it, not tell their friends or let friends borrow it.

That leads to obscurity which is worse than "piracy."

And the only bullies are the RIAA/MPAA and their respective supporters, along with the BSA and their supporters.

Those are the bullies because there is NO choice with them. You do have a choice, if you ask people nicely not to share, you can. But don't start that "we don't ask people not to steal a car" because no one is deprived of the work, only the "potential" income.

The point is, you've seen the reaction of people when you alienate. Did those law suits make people think of the artists? No, they were pissed even more.

Look at Trent Reznor "has the price dropped here?" Audience "no", Trent "Steal it, steal steal steal" because he knows the labels have ripped people off with price fixing.

SO that's what you see now, the result of price fixing and law suits and threats.

There IS a choice with free. I could buy or I could try torrent it. If it is a decent price, I'll gladly buy. If some schmuck is charging too much, way more than it is worth, I'll borrow it from the library or torrent it.

Do I care? No, why should I? No one is less money because I torrented or borrowed it. I don't think you understand, no one went into your account and took money.

If you want people to buy it and you want more to buy it, make it a reasonable price, that's basics of economics Mr Lowery. You know that.

The difference today is people can still consume the content, so yeah, you want them to pay? Make it good and don't be a douche, be polite and ask and you'll see how many don't download compared to being a douche and see how many DO download out of spite.

There's no bully from consumers, only missed opportunities.

Ditch the old way of thinking, the false scarcity. Artists who want to try don't have to work as hard to release full length albums because EP's and some cool packages will work even better for them.

You know what fans want most, to connect with the artist, on the artist's terms.

No everyone fallows the rules, so don't think because some download and most don't that you still have a problem

We all know it's illegal to steal a car, but has that stopped car thieves from stealing cars? Nope. It's illegal to have many variants of firearms in Canada, but do you think the criminals give a shit? No.

Does that mean every one doesn't care and they are just bullies wanting what they want, no registration, just the "guns"? No.

The "don't alienate your fanbase" means show them respect and you'll get it in return. Not by everyone, but not everyone would respect you anyhow, that's how the world.

The difference is your world is not a few local thieves stealing Brand from the music stores, it's 7 billion people in the city. The number of non-caring-take-it-anyway people who don't respect is much larger when you look at online numbers.

Scale it into perspective before you continue to alienate your fanbase even more. Trust me, your rants do get around and less will be enticed to purchase your material.

Would you want to purchase my music if it came with a slap in the face? Didn't think so.

Re: Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

You still owe the label the cash they gave you and so you have to get a job and pay them back, unless you strike some deal where they take all your rights and forgive the debt.

To be fair to the labels (I know - I'm shuddering myself), this isn't exactly true. If you get dropped, you don't have to pay them back out of anything except the royalties from the records you produced on their label. And oftentimes, the contract stipulates that you can't go to another label until your "debt" is paid off. But it's not like they dock your pay from the local 7-11.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

Ah, thanks Karl, a friend of mine said you do owe that money back.

But I know of one musician (famous Canadian but it was private email exchange) who said the debt was forgiven but I am not sure what the artist had to give up to get that debt forgiven, and the future albums sold well, well until 2007 anyway, even with no help from label in terms of promotion.

So I guess my friend neglected to mention the debt can be forgiven.

I suppose they have you by the shorts and curlies if you can't go to another label and they dropped you, which means your music career is over.

Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

I'm fighting for a fair and ethical internet.

By the way, you know who is keeping the internet from being "fair and ethical?"

The major labels.

At this point, the man sitting next to me said, "I'm Hank Barry, the CEO of Napster. Nice to meet you." This is a very interesting way of meeting someone that you are suing. Nonetheless, recovering from my shock of having just given my whole spiel directly to the opposing side, I immediately explained that I was not against Napster existing, but that I just wanted musicians to be paid for their work. He told me that he originally wanted to charge for downloads and pay the artists, but the major labels wouldn't play ball, so he decided to force the issue by promoting the idea that file sharing was good for the advancement of the Internet and would not harm artists. Little did he know that this would become a popular myth that changed the public's attitude about paying for music permanently, causing the collapse of the entire music industry, making even Napster's business plan obsolete. I explained that I had a whole plan to create a statutory rate for downloads, just as the recording industry had a statutory rate that it could use to simplify publishing agreements. I handed him a paper that detailed my proposal. He read the proposal, and then told me that he agreed with much of it and would read some of it in his CNN interview after the hearing. [...]

Hank Barry went on to lobby Congress to create a system very similar to my statutory rate proposal. Ironically, Napster not only stole my music, but also my solution to their problem. Unfortunately, that solution was opposed by the major labels. Sen. Orrin Hatch was at first intrigued by the proposal, but after the major media companies called it government price-fixing, he opposed it. Never mind the fact that the same companies love statutory rates when they benefit from them in negotiations with publishers. I made another proposal, Open Market Digital Distribution, which would have allowed copyright holders to set their own rates for statutory licenses, but the major labels opposed that as well, likely because it would have given the artists more power than they had at the time.

The major labels won their battle against Napster, but lost the war against illegal downloads, perhaps partly because they held on to their power over artists at the expense of creating a business model for downloads that would have worked for everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

Re: Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

For me personally, I don't pirate software because I use freeware almost exclusively, but if a software company doesn't bother to give a free trial, I don't bother to buy it. Who would install a piece of software they've never tried to use, especially at today's prices?

Markups on software are even more ridiculous than on pharmaceuticals, since Linux proves software distro can be free, and it's nearly so even for companies that host their own. I have no intention of supporting massive greed, especially when open source alternatives exist which are often better.

Re: Re:

Did you just shift the topic because Karl took you down a peg? Oh, I need some popcorn!

But okay, let's say you have a point, and that we need to consider other fields. Let's talk about books. I'm a genre reader myself, mostly historical and sf&f. When Baen Books first came out, I will admit I spent a while assuming they were those cheap space opera publishers and I was best off buying used or checking out of the library and laughing at the covers. They had one or two authors I really liked, but most of my paper bookshelf is not Baen.

Most of my ebooks? Are.

See, Baen did something very smart a very long time ago. They refused to join the DRM bandwagon and they provided books in every format imaginable (and then some). They decided to treat me as an honest person, and crazily, they won my support with that. Add to that their paperback prices for the older ebook midlist, and you see me dropping a small but steady stream of cash on them every couple of months.

As far as I know, Baen didn't give their authors the option to choose DRM or no-DRM. Like record companies, they made that choice for their authors. But unlike record companies, they used that choice to support sales to directly help their authors as much as possible.

Am I being unethical by boycotting other booksellers until they do the same? I don't think so, unless suddenly using public libraries is a crime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

Still haven't worked out that copyright is a restriction of rights, not a granting of rights, have you? I can see you also haven't worked out how many rights are infringed upon by labels' unworkable attempts to shut down not only piracy but legal competitors, nor peoples' actual opinions on the subject, despite them being mentioned in every thread.

Nothing to see here folks, just the usual ignorant fool spouting nonsense,..

Re: Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

It's not censorship if it's not censored. The original text is still there, viewable with the click of a mouse button.

It would be censorship if, say, it was blocked completely in your country, or if the government took it down entirely.

Also, way to be a total douchebag, spamming the comments with exactly the same text multiple times.

Why, whatever would we do without some asshole calling us all pirates? Even though the entire article is about how particular artists don't care about sharing their music, so sharing their music is not piracy?

Oh, by the way, if I can't pay for music, nowadays I just do without. I already own hundreds of albums anyway. Do you know how much my lack of piracy earns artists? Zero dollars. Exactly the same as they would get if I did pirate their music.

On the other hand, if artists do allow their work to be shared, then they'll probably earn more money - seeing as every independent study shows that people who pirate legally purchase far more music than people who do not.

But, you're absolutely right. If musicians are actively against filesharing, then don't download their music. And don't buy it either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

Bollocks you are. At the moment, all you are doing is deceitful trolling to get free eyeballs.

You may have had a point in your rants, but you lost a lot of respect when you refer to the "Digerati" as the enemies of artists everywhere. The days of having a mega-rich career in music are over - however, it's easier to make a moderate living in this industry. But it's still work, even if you're a hobbyist.

Re: Similar, and more

Thanks for the link - just spotted the St. Etienne article, I worked with them years ago as they created the music for a game I worked on, good to see they're still around as they seemed like good people.

Regina comes across as a very good singer/musician with a great attitude towards file-sharing, just like most musicians I know. Looks like another album to add to the buy list.

Re: Re: Artists themselves

You know what's interesting? This entire comment was posted by the same "how much is the pirate bay paying artists" AC, yet reading it, it's almost like it was written by a different person entirely.

Which, in my opinion, it was. Especially given that this one comment is written in an entirely different and reasonable style as opposed to the rest of the ACs comments. Me thinks someone was temporarily replaced or asked someone to write it on their behalf.

Shame, shame, shame. Write your own comments AC, or if you're going to have others do it for you, tell them to dumb it down and do away with the proper grammar and whatnot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

Karl, if I may, this should get under your skin. Particularly since he, the AC, is claiming to be pro-artists choices and claiming the rest of us are essentially thieves. The why is simple, if he's as pro-artists as he tries to come off, it stands to reason that he should NOT be encouraging artists to fail. While also going off about artists being allowed to have a choice in how their music is distributed, he ignores the fact that some file sharing sites are used by artists to share their music and that shutting down some sites or labeling them illegal, unethical and exploitative he is in effect doing what he accuses the rest of us of. He is denying artists the opportunity to make a choice of how to distribute their music and wanting to limit their distribution choices to essentially only the big labels. Well, there are other options, like Kickstarter and what have you, but I've seen him shoot down such efforts. Which is in line with what you said about all he's ever done here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is really simple

Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

"The one problem Mr Lowery is that if people choose not to purchase someone's album or download or fileshare (and you can't stop them all, but say you did), the artist gets nothing and the artist gets no exposure either."

Artists don't need file sharing for "exposure" so I'm happy to not have artists files illegally exploited without concent or compensation for profit by companies and corporations.

Also, despite the hype, traditional media drives the majority of music discovery, so no offense, but artists were getting plenty of exposure before the internet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

I care about artists and not labels so I don't really care about the RIAA, or any of it... you are wasting your time and that does not excuse the pirate bay or any other company exploiting artists illegally for profit.

so explain to me again how your solution to one injustice (piracy) is an even greater injustice doing more harm to artists in the illegal exploitation of artists work without any consent or compensation?

here's the math:

old gate keepers = access to distribution
new gate keepers = access to REVENUE from distribution

same game, new players, worse terms.

You are now supporting system WORSE than the labels and the RIAA, and the illegal exploitation of artists against their will, does that sound fair and ethical to you?

Re: Re: For shame.

Yet another attempt to justify theft. Don't pretend for one second that when you steal a song by downloading it for free without authorization from the copyright owner that you are serving anyone but yourself. If you can't afford to pay for something, or you don't want to pay for it, do without.

This attitude that the world owes everyone everything they want has created a huge group of criminals.

By all means, steal all you want. You probably won't get caught. Sleep well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

They may take it down. Of course, since The Pirate Bay doesn't actually upload or host any of the content, it's highly likely (although not in your case because you're as much an artist as I'm a billionaire) someone, like say a USER of the site (who are the ones actually sharing the files indexed by TPB), will upload it again.

What's hilarious though is that you didn't come up with an answer to PaulT. No examples huh? Figures.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve has some other great opinions on the music industry....

PaulT don't waste your time, I have explained to this troll repeatedly how a reported/flagged comment is NOT censorship and he's still not gotten it and kept talking about censorship. It LITERALLY is too difficult for his tiny brain to grasp.

He can't stand his trolling (because that's what most of what he's doing is) isn't just being allowed to take place and is being reported for the disruptive and irrelevant nonsense that it is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

I care about artists and not labels so I don't really care about the RIAA, or any of it...

You don't care that the major prevented a way for musicians to make money from filesharing? Really? I guess you don't care about a "fair and ethical internet" after all...

your solution to one injustice (piracy)

Why the fuck are you still going on about this?

Piracy is not "my solution" to the old label system. Kickstarter, CD Baby, Soundcloud, Bandcamp, eMusic, iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, and the thousands of other way the internet is helping musicians make money is my solution.

Why do you hate it so much when artists succeed?

And there is no question that the major labels are far worse for musicians - amateur or pro, indie or mainstream - than sites like The Pirate Bay could ever hope to be. Unlike the major labels, The Pirate Bay doesn't require you to assign your copyrights to them; doesn't stop you from putting your music on YouTube (or other places); doesn't control the artistic direction of the albums. You're not forced to sign with The Pirate Bay to get your music on commercial radio or television. And they don't keep a single dime of any money you make through selling albums, touring, selling merch, Kickstarter, or what have you.

And, far more important to me and most artists, The Pirate Bay isn't paying politicians to pass insane laws or treaties like SOPA, PROTECT IP, ACTA, or TPP. And it has never used the legal system to literally rob artists of their copyrights, unlike the current Senior VP of the RIAA.

You may think it sucks that The Pirate Bay netted $168,885.60 (before costs) by putting ads on a site that facilitates peer-to-peer noncommercial infringement. That hasn't stopped thousands of artists from flocking to it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

Easy to answer "Why do you hate it so much when artists succeed?" Karl: because he is not succeeding today.

If Mr Lowery's efforts today were as successful as Wilco or OK Go, you would not see him here ranting, nor linking to his blog in effort to drive up hits (add revenue? street cred "look at how many view my blog").

It does not matter if others are successful by trying different things (which IS the new model of the future), what matters is that he is not successful and therefore, in his eyes, it's a total failure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

Easy to answer "Why do you hate it so much when artists succeed?" Karl: because he is not succeeding today.

That is a good point, but it still doesn't explain the outright hatred. Plenty of musicians (most, even) are not succeeding today. They don't dismiss the artists who are successful, nor do they dismiss the amazing amount of tools that the internet makes possible.

He doesn't care one whit about an "ethical internet." And he is actively against artists who make a living outside the traditional label system. No, this is pretty clearly a person who worked as the king's jester, and is blaming the peasantry when the castle walls collapse.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a Nutshell

Some people are just angry like that. It's always easier to blame others than to admit one's shortcomings. I assume such is the case with Mr. Lowery/Anonymous Coward. Especially in light of the success of artists such as Amanda Palmer, who are able to turn what could be seen as a negative (file sharing, the end of an "era" of big labels, Kickstarter usage, etc.) into success and who ARE able to connect with fans and give them reasons to buy.

It's the only possible explanation for such anger and hatred. To see others succeed where you yourself are incapable, in large part due to your own misunderstanding of the situation and changing world around you and your own awful personality (as is the case with the aforementioned person).

And the sad part is it's not too late to change and make use of all these new opportunities and spin a negative into a positive, unless of course you're dead set in your ways and beliefs. In which case there's nothing that can be done, except rage at everyone around you who is able to adapt. It's somewhat Darwinian, the fittest will survive, those who can't will slowly fade away until they disappear entirely.

Re: Re: Re: For shame.

What is it about Techdirt that attracts paranoid delusionals to make lengthy comments, I wonder? Persecution complex, conspiracy theory, personal attacks and false, baseless accusations within a diatribe that has nothing to do with anything anyone actually says here.

Add the fact that this particular genius somehow insists on signing his name every time, but hasn't worked out how to stop him name from appearing as an AC (hint: there's a clearly marked box for that), and it's almost a model of idiocy.

A shame people like this apparently have the energy to write columns of text, but not enough to actually think about what they or anybody else is writing. Ho hum...

Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

No, mostly it's because your looping logic and willful blindness of reality is so damn interesting, that nobody can resist.

Real idiocy happens when you stop worrying about reality, and instead spend your time trying to justify the reasons that you pirate. The best one is that you need a "reason to buy". Talk about horseshit, if you have the desire to download it, then you already had the reason to buy - you just chose not to pay.

It's a shame that people like you are so deluded, and have spent so much time marinating in the koolaid that you are not longer able to put together a full thought!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

Why the fuck would anyone have reason to buy something with DRM on it? Sure, I can support the artist/company by buying the original. But I'm going to ensure that I can run it on my devices without cumbersome DRM bringing everything down. Your insistence that downloads always equates to being cheap is horseshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

"justify the reasons that you pirate"

Yeah, this is exactly the fantasy bullshit I'm talking about. You can't look at my actual opinion, so you attack a fantasy strawman of what you think you should be attacking. Those of us in reality are laughing at you. Pathetic.

"if you have the desire to download it, then you already had the reason to buy"

But, thanks to windowing, region coding, DRM and other bullshit your masters push upon the world, not the opportunity. I don't pirate, no matter what the voices in your head tell you, but I have very few legal options in any case.

My money's still waiting for anyone who wants to actually take it. It's a shame you're too busy attacking fantasies that you won't take my money. Oh well, the independent artists actually being discussed in these threads - the ones who get my money - will be quite happy while you whine and moan and tilt at windmills only you can see.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

Talk about horseshit, if you have the desire to download it, then you already had the reason to buy

Yes, because if you can get something for free, that automatically means that you would have paid for it, no matter what the price. Right?

Talk about horseshit. Obviously, the reason people are downloading is because they don't have a reason to buy. If they did, they would have bought it.

And there are plenty of reasons not to buy. Perhaps they've never heard the music before, and don't know if they like it or not. Perhaps they simply can't afford it. Perhaps they literally can't buy it, due to windowing or regional restrictions. Perhaps they know that the money will mostly go to businesses that they don't want to support.

Or perhaps it's as simple as this: they like it enough to get it for free, but not enough to spend money on it. Lots of people listen to the radio or watch sitcoms on TV, but very few of those people ever buy the CD or DVD.

That may not justify piracy. But even if they don't pirate, they still wouldn't pay for it. Which means you have two choices as an artist: don't get paid, or don't get paid. At least with piracy, there's a good chance that those same people will pay later, or pay for a different album, or come to shows, or what have you. Pirates, after all, spend far more money on legal purchases than non-pirates. If they simply don't listen, then even that opportunity is gone.

So, the question is: why on Earth would any musician want to keep people from listening to their music? Why would they want to wall themselves off from the public like that?

For most musicians, the answer is that they don't. That's why most don't actually care about filesharing very much. Amanda's and Albini's philosophies are pretty common among musicians. The ones who are against it are mostly the creatures of the major labels, who have the label executives whispering lies in their ears, like Iago to Othello.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For shame.

"Real idiocy happens when you stop worrying about reality, and instead spend your time trying to justify the reasons that you pirate."

Actually, in your case, your idiocy happens whenever you comment. Or in case you didn't notice, PaulT never stated that he pirates a thing. So by default, he can't justify something he doesn't do.

"The best one is that you need a "reason to buy"."

You do need a reason to buy. Why would anyone buy something without having a reason to? Makes little to no sense from a logical perspective.

"Talk about horseshit, if you have the desire to download it, then you already had the reason to buy - you just chose not to pay."

Regarding "talk about horseshit", yes, your comments are exactly that. Have you ever been in a grocery store and had one of those free samples? If so, why did you take the sample? Oh, because it was being given freely. Did you buy the product being sampled afterward? Maybe, maybe not. But why would you take the sample if you weren't going to buy the product after, you just chose not to pay. You f*cking thief!

If people can get something free for the most part they'll get it. But only if it's free. And just because they take it at the free price DOES NOT mean they would ever have bought it in the first place.

You're of the "one download = one lost sale" mindset, which is flawed and for the most part incorrect, not to say moronic.

"It's a shame that people like you are so deluded, and have spent so much time marinating in the koolaid that you are not longer able to put together a full thought!"

Sheesh, why do you have to talk about yourself like that? Oh you weren't? Could've fooled me. Because your entire comment was filled with strawmen, the same kind of strawmen being used by the RIAA/MPAA. Which deluded people who DO NOT believe in actual facts and studies consider to be the gospel truth. But the truth is you're wrong and the facts and evidence prove this. But you've drunk too much RIAA/MPAA koolaid and just keep spouting the same drivel that's been debunked time and time again.

Poor AC. Maybe one of these days you'll be able to get one up on somebody, but today just isn't your day.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists themselves

The list of freedoms has been enumerated bunches of times here, so I'll just be brief. The DMCA anti-circumvention infringes on my legal right to engage in a number of legal activities from backups, through format-shifting, through reverse-engineering. SOPA as originally drafted would have infringed on my right to free speech by allowing private organizations to shut down websites based on nothing more than a large corporation's pinky-swear that the site in infringing in some way. Current enforcement of current copyright laws is already being used to infringe on free speech through outright takedowns (of nonpirate sites) and such intimidation that legitimate free speech is too risky to engage in. And so on.

You are so naive. Amanda Palmer is a Scientologist. The Kickstarter campaign wasn't real. She never got the money which is why she asked people to play for free and started trying to account for the money in ridiculous ways. She scammed you and she's still scamming.

Give a good reason to pay for music

First, I'm anti-piracy. Second, I'm pro-business. Musicians who don't mind not getting paid are hobbyists. Musicians who need to get paid are professionals.

Here's what I think is wrong with the situation, and also what I did about it (I'm no keyboard warrior.). The biz model for music is no longer working. With technology, social networks, etc .. sharing of music is expected and easy.

I started a system with a different business model that rewards fans who pay for music and share it - with cash. Let me know what you think of this choice, both from a consumer's perspective and from a artiste's perspective.http://e27.sg/2012/12/28/tell-my-friends/